Ram Gopal And Other v. The Financial Commissioner Appeal Punjab And Others


  
  



  


    

!"

#$ %"&'('#)*

+ ,+

 - #. / )% )#!0"1 ....Petitioners Vs.

') )&' /
#--'(('#)"12 "3")4"2 4)5 6 )% #!0"1( ....Respondents
  * 7 8 + 9
  9



Present:

Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate and Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Ajay Dhiman, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Harpreet Singh, AAG, Punjab.

*****  9

 +

1 / Petition herein is,

, seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari, for setting aside the order dated 16.01.2020 (Annexure P.8) passed by learned Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Sri Anandpur Sahib; order dated 03.12.2020 (Annexure P.10) passed by learned Collector, Rupnagar and order dated 06.05.2025 (Annexure P.12) passed by learned Financial Commissioner, Punjab.

2.

Briefly respondents No.4 to 6 herein filed an application in Form.L under Section 14(A)(1) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, seeking eviction of the petitioners from the land in question measuring kanal . 02 marla comprised in khewat No.43/41, khasra No.2//18/1(03K.02M) situated at village Barari, Tehsil Sri Anandpur Sahib,


District Rupnagar, Punjab (as per jamabandi for the year 2015.16), on the following grounds:.

(i) That the heirs of the original 
 

Budhu son of Gainda are not paying rent continuously to the petitioners without any reason.

(ii) That the aforesaid respondents have not paid the rent for the 6 crops i.e. from Sauni 2016 to Haari 2018 and this rent is pending towards them.

(iii) That the tenants are not ploughing and sowing the disputed land properly without any reason, as is ploughing and sowing in the area.

(iv) That the tenants are using this land carelessly, due to which they have not allowed this land to remain cultivable.

3.

The present petitioners as well as the proforma respondents appeared in the aforesaid eviction proceedings and contested the same by filing their joint reply,

, on the plea that the petitioners were regularly paying the 

(half of the produce) to the respondents No.4 to 6 and prior to them, their predecessor.in.interest was paying the 
regularly, however, they did not issue any receipt to the petitioners. Another plea was taken by the petitioners that earlier the land was uneven and the petitioners have incurred lakhs of rupees in making the land fertile, therefore, it was prayed that respondents No.4 to 6 be directed to pay the aforesaid expenditures to the petitioners.

4.

Respondents No.4 to 6 submitted their rejoinder to the reply submitted by the petitioners and the matter was fixed for evidence of the respondents No.4 to 6 herein, wherein they examined respondent No.4


(Pankaj Joshi) as AW.1; Sh.Surdarshan Kumar as AW.2 and one Sh. Deepak Rai as AW.3.

5.

It transpires that learned Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Anandpur Sahib, upon consideration of the matter, vide order dated 16.01.2020 (Annexure P.8), ordered eviction of the petitioners from the land in question.

5.1 Feeling aggrieved against the order dated 16.01.2020 (Annexure P.8), the petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned Collector, Rupnagar, which was dismissed vide order dated 03.12.2020 (Annexure P.10).

5.2 Still aggrieved, petitioners preferred a revision before the learned Financial Commissioner, Punjab, which was also dismissed vide order dated 06.05.2025 (Annexure P.12), 6.

In the aforementioned circumstances, present writ petition has been filed before this Court, for seeking relief(s), as noticed hereinabove. 7.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the authorities below have erred in law and facts in passing the impugned orders on the following grounds:.

(i) That the authorities below have not considered the fact that the petitioners are also the co.owners of the land in question to the extent of 01 kanal - 19 marla, however, even then the eviction order has been passed in respect of total 03 kanal . 02 marla area.

(ii) That the learned Assistant Collector, has not afforded any opportunity to the petitioners to lead their evidence.


(iii) That the petitioners have given the entire rent/ 

 (half of the produce) to the private respondents, however it is the private respondents who did not issue any receipt to the petitioners. It is contended that the petitioners have been regularly paying the 

(half of the produce) to the private respondents.

(iv) That earlier the private respondents had filed an application for partition on land in question, which was dismissed vide order dated 11.03.2019 (Annexure P.15). It is contended that the petitioners are co.sharers in the land in question and therefore they cannot be evicted from the entire land.

7.1.

With the aforesaid submissions, prayer has been made for setting aside the impugned orders.

8.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the paperbook with his able assistance.

9.

As regards the first and fourth contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that they are the co.owners of the land in question, therefore, the eviction order could not have been passed against the petitioners; a specific query was raised to learned counsel for the petitioners as to on which date and to what extent the petitioners acquired ownership rights in the land in question; however, learned counsel for the petitioners failed to respond to the same. The only response forthcoming was that petitioners had purchased only a part of total land measuring 03K.02M. 9.1 Hon'ble Supreme Court in 

          



 !"!

!#$

% ; held as under:.





 

  
 

   !!! !


  !

 


 " 
#!$% &'( % 

)


!



'

   ' 
  
!! &
* 

& '  ()  * +) 

, -   .//#  % %
+!


'




  

" 
% &' ( , !
''    ! 
* 
   ' -% 


  ,
! 

 '  ''-%
* 
  0   ) 

$)#  !

#)  + 1  23) 

$)# 4  2"!

  !


'

    

.


   
)


!         )
 
          /
  !    



 '

   '
/
 0 !    

 
  

!


   !

!

   1!
 

 




' 

 
  '
  

      '

  !     

 '    &
* 
!
* !

%'

 
  '

 % &'( 
  !

 !
! ,

 
   !!!   ' !  

!
!




  !!'

  !23 -44))))))1

!
'  
 ,  
  ,


  

 !!


)


      '  !  
#!$ %     &'  (   %  + 
'
     ,  
!
 '   ,  
   45('
! 



'
  
#!$ % &'(   ! 




  

!


 '' !  ! 

 ' 
 
!

 

' 
 

   

 !!


  

!




5
 ''!  ! 

' 
 
%

 



 
   

 



 
'!

 

 !  


.

 
  !!0


 


  



!  '' 


!
  !!  !

!
!!''

!!!
 
 !'

   ! !

!%'

''    
  ! ! '
,
  6 *(  ! 
!!'
 '

!


  29.2 Thus, mere acquisition of share of the tenanted property cannot absolve the petitioner from his liability to pay rent etc. to the landlord. Consequently, there is no merit in the plea that since petitioners have purchased a part of the suit property therefore they have become co.owners of suit property, accordingly no eviction order could have been passed against them. Resultantly, the first and fourth contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is hereby rejected.

10.

As regards the second plea of the petitioners that they have not been afforded any opportunity to lead defence evidence, suffice it to say that learned counsel for the petitioners had cross.examined the witnesses of the private respondents on 12.12.2019 and thereafter, the matter was adjourned to 16.12.2019. On 16.12.2019 the matter was adjourned to 17.12.2019 and then to 23.12.2019, and thereafter to 09.01.2020 and ultimately the matter was adjourned to 16.01.2020, when the learned counsel for the petitioners addressed the final arguments before the learned Assistant Collector, and the order for eviction against the petitioners was pronounced.

%
10.1 From the perusal of the zimni orders as reproduced by the petitioners in para No.11 (ii), it is evident that after the evidence of the private respondents herein was closed on 12.12.2019, the matter was adjourned for at least 5 dates, however, on none of the dates, any prayer was made by the petitioners and/or their counsel that they intend to lead any evidence. The aforesaid factual position is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioners before this Court.

10.2 In my considered view once the matter was pending before the learned Assistant Collector at the stage of evidence of the private respondents, which was closed on 12.12.2019, and thereafter despite the matter having being adjourned on 05 occasions, since no prayer was made by the petitioners and/or their counsel before the learned Assistant Collector, for leading defence evidence, now at this stage, after the passing of eviction order, the petitioners cannot be permitted to agitate that they have not been afforded any opportunity to lead defence evidence. The petitioners were very well aware of the case filed against them, and in case they wanted to controvert the stand of the private respondents and/or the evidence which was led against them, they were well within their rights to seek/claim leading of their defence evidence, which was never done by them, as also conceded before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of the above, I see no merit in the second contention of the petitioners and the same is accordingly rejected.

11.

As regards the third contention of the petitioners that they have been regularly paying the 

 (half of the produce) to the private

,
respondents, however, it is the private respondents who never issued any receipt thereof, suffice it to say that if the petitioners were aggrieved against the non.issuance of receipt by the private respondents, then the petitioners were well within their right to approach the concerned Assistant Collector under Section 14.A(iii) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act 1953, which reads as under:.


.  6# #  #8#6$ #$ 

#6 #1

# 

#$ #$6
 !
 
   
!

 

 
 !

/  '

   
7( #
$ ! !

 /  !

(  ''
 

 (

*  8
  !
 / 
!

   ' ! '
!!


  
#9$  
:


( !'

 

  
#4$


!   
       '' 
  
   

 ''

  '
!!      .

 
  

' 
! ,



' 
 
  !& /% ( ;;#<=0;;$

 !> #

$! !

      ''
 

 (

 * " ! !
 / 
!

    ' !

 '


! 
!'
 
 '

!
'
 '
!
  

' '  !!.



 
  
 
'

'
! '

!


1

!



4
'
!!


  
#9$  
:
(  (

* 
!

 '
!

  !'
!          /     


!'

! 
'



 !  !> #


$ #$
!!

 

' 

! !


) 

 

!

 !
( 

 
 
'


 

 
 (

* " !

!
 / 
!

  #$   

 

''

  (

 *   

,
!!



''


! 

(  
 
'   

 ?:!  
'
3 11.1 Evidently, the petitioners have not adopted the aforesaid course. Even otherwise, the petitioners have not led any evidence in support of their claim that they had regularly paid the 

to the private respondents;

and accordingly, the learned Assistant Collector directed the eviction of the petitioners by holding as under:.

))) ))) ))) (     '

    '!
  !  !

     !!
 

     '
 0   



 

  '!   
 

 '
!   ? '

 " 
9:?

" 
9:;% '! ' 


!

 
             '
       '

 
'  


 & @

  %  +!@
6  @ 6   '!

!



 

   !' !

  '! '
!''
  " 
9:?" 
9:;0
 !!

 A."

' * 0!

 -  6/ @

8

*

& /!(- !!::B7;:7;:&+C& 45?4B! 8

*

& / 
 
 


-6 !

 "

*! 
-9::7#9$6*6&  ;: ''

 " 
5#$D7#$#

$& / "


+!%  ( 7B4

 ' 
  '
 

%  
! 


 ''
'  
'   '! '!

!  
'    '       %    

      '!      !
'

!  ! 
 !!  !    '!  ' 
 !
 !    !        '



!
'

!!''
 ' )'

''0  '
 
 
!

 '! '
!

  '



 '  %! 

'  !% 
  !  !
 !

 !

 '
 3 11.2 The aforesaid eviction order has been further affirmed by the learned Collector, Rupnagar vide order dated 03.12.2020 (Annexure P.10) and also by the learned Financial Commissioner, Punjab vide order dated 06.05.2025 (Annexure P.12), by observing as under:. ? 0!

 ! !+!    '
 !'

!!

 

 %' !


 


! '!4 ! 99& /"


!+!% 6  7B?

!
" 
5(#$& /"


+!%  ( 7B4

'

   !


' %'

  !

 !!''!



  % 
    


!! ' !


 
!'!
  ;:49:7?:9:9: %!'

!(

*   !    '' 

    !&

'
 '

 


   

!
'

0


!  !'

 
!'!

    
'      !

  
!    

''   

 !'
!%'

 " 
 5(#


$& /"


+!% ( 7B4  '
!
  
' 

!  !'
 ' 


 '

'

   ' !


 %
!
  !!(

*   !  
! '
!? '

 " 
9:?" 
9:; 
 !* %
 
 !
'

      %  

      '

  

 
!  )
!%
 
       !   

!    
  

 !   '

  ''!
 
!% ''

'


!'

 !!   !

!    :49:;  !        

 !( 

 

'

  
   ' !%

 !
    


 
  (

 *   !! 
!
 

 ' ' !


%'

  !!
 

'

 ! '
!
 

' "'

  '

 " 
9:?" 
9:;

 !!!  '!%* 



 !
!


!'

!!
!!! :499:9:%'

 
!!

 




 !'
!

)
!





 '  ' !" 
 5(#


$  %'

   !

! '
!! 
!
!!'
 
!!  !
! !

 
!  

 !( ' 
!!  A.  "

'   *  
  6/  @  

 8

 *

& /7;:(06"*5?5! ! A.  A
  *  
  6/
  "
   !    

8

  *

  A  6   E'   !

 9:B#$6*6#*

$?;;
 ! 
 






   !

%! '

!

 

  


! 
 !


  !  6



'


!

!!! !!:499:9:'

!* 

(E*6'  !  !  !!  ?:9:9:  '

!    "

  E






(

* 0  !"
(!'

 "
 '!*'
!


!

  ( '
 
  !  ! 3 11.3 I have gone through the above.extracted observations made by the learned Financial Commissioner and in the attending circumstances of this case, I see no reason to differ from the same. Accordingly, the third contention raised on behalf of petitioners is also found to be without any merit and the same is also rejected.

12.

In view of the discussion, the instant writ petition fails and the same is accordingly  # .


13.

All the pending application(s), if any, shall also stand closed.

 9

 + ,+

  
 Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No